One foot might not seem like a major difference – unless it’s on a basketball court. And unless it’s the three-point line you’re talking about.

Last year, the NCAA Playing Rules Oversight Panel decided to move the traditional women’s three-point arc before the start of the season.  In a (literal) step towards gender equity, the women’s three-point line now matches the men’s line at 20’9,” a full foot farther from the basket and the old women’s line of 19’9.” (Read my October 24 post about this.)

So did it matter?

Not surprisingly, the change did have an impact on shooters.  NCAA stats, just posted  last week, show Division I players shot 30.72% this season, down from 31.74% in 2010-11. (The 2010-2011 DI ‘s top 3-pointer shooter, Drexel’s Kamile Nacickaite saw her percentage fall from 47.8 to 32.6 this season.)

Concerned? Don’t be.

When the men’s line moved to 20’9” for the 2008-2009 season, stats show the shooting percentage from beyond the arc dropped from 35.23% in 2007-08 to 34.40%.  It hasn’t risen back to its 2007-08 level yet, but has increased slightly in the last two seasons.

The new line probably also impacted offenses in more subtle ways.  The number of attempted threes per game dropped from an all-time high of 16.60 in 2010-11 to 15.84 in 2011-12.  Teams also scored 1.3 fewer points per game this season. Players may have adjusted to struggles from the three by looking to score on drives to the basket or feeds to the post.

Will the women’s shooting percentage increase?

Almost certainly. It takes time to adjust and players need practice from the farther distance. On my Wellesley College team, we spent a lot of time shooting from the new line before, during, and after practice. (Our shooting percentage from the three actually went up this season!)

As new players move up through the ranks of women’s college basketball and gain experience, I’m betting the three-point shooting percentage will only go one way: Up.

By Ashleigh Sargent and Mariah Philips

Notre Dame: The Fighting Irish took down perennial powerhouse UConn in overtime to advance to the National Championship for the second year in a row.  Behind the leadership of Skylar Diggins, who finished the night with 19 points, Notre Dame forced the game into overtime after falling behind the Huskies with less than ten seconds in regulation.  Natalie Novosel put back a clutch offensive board to tie the game with 4.6 seconds left and eventually finished with a team-high of 20 points.  Notre Dame dominated overtime, getting two key three-pointers from Brittany Mallory and scoring the final eight points to secure a spot in the Championship. Analysis: The combination of solid perimeter play and relentless toughness clinched the victory.

Baylor: Despite getting just 13 points total from Brittany Griner, Baylor’s strong second half secured the victory over the Stanford Cardinal.  Terran Condrey came up big off the bench for the Bears adding 13 points.  On the defensive end, Destiny Williams grabbed eight defensive boards to finish with a team-high ten rebounds.  Even though Stanford doubled down on Griner, her height and athleticism proved to be too much to handle down the stretch.  Analysis: Both teams struggled offensively, but in the end, Baylor’s defensive efforts won the game for them. Even though Nnemkadi Ogwumike scored 22 points, the Bears managed to hold the rest of the Stanford roster to single digit scoring.

 The Big Game: This Championship matchup will be an interesting one as it features strong guard play on Notre Dame’s side versus Baylor’s tough inside game anchored by Brittany Griner.  Notre Dame will be persistent and scrappy in the front court and will have to rely on the leadership of their guards to control the pace and cause havoc on defense.  Conversely, Baylor will need a big performance from their post players.  If Baylor can consistently feed the ball down low and follow up misses with put-backs, they will be hard to stop with a much smaller Notre Dame team.

 The Pick: We predict that the next National Champion will be Baylor based on their flawless record of 39-0 and an unmatchable size advantage.  Notre Dame is a small team to begin with and Brittany Griner has been virtually unstoppable, even by teams with a strong post game.  The Fighting Irish will live up to their name and hang with the Bears for at least the first half, but eventually size will win out and Notre Dame will start to fall behind.  Unless the Notre Dame guards have an outstanding shooting day from behind the arc, it will be close to impossible for them to outscore Baylor.  In this David versus Goliath-esque matchup, we have Goliath getting the victory and securing a perfect 40-0 record.

Ashleigh Sargent is a 6′ forward for Wellesley College and Mariah Philips is a Wellesley varsity softball player.

Sports are political. This year’s March Madness tournament has made that point even more clearly than usual as President Barack Obama’s campaign announced the “Obama Bracket Challenge:” Out pick the President and your name appears on the campaign website.

While initial reports suggested a catch – that the contest only applied to the men’s bracket — the campaign IS hosting a women’s contest as well.

The women’s NCAA playoff may not be as big as the men’s. We know that. We have known that for years and years. We are, frankly, tired of knowing that.

But even as news outlets continue to focus on the men’s DI tournament, many have discovered that – hey – it’s not so tough to also cover the women. (Ignoring them, after all, is getting awkward). And this year promises some compelling play.

Inside Higher Ed’s annual academic performance bracket – looking at the playoff teams through graduation rates – this year for the first time includes analysis of women’s teams. The TeamRankings blog has discovered that “all of the rankings and simulations can be applied to the women’s side of things as well” and includes a table of round-by-round survival odds. And the Bleacher Report provides analysis of all the first round match-ups, pointing out that the “element of the unknown” in the men’s tourney “is ratcheted up to another level in the women’s tournament” (and yes, because many teams are never seen on national TV).

These may be small steps. But they matter. More people are filling out the women’s brackets. More outlets are considering the composition of the teams and the match-ups.

Sports is political. Whether you join the Obama Bracket Challenge or not, if you are March Madness inclined, fill out a women’s bracket because the conversation about whether Baylor will run the tables or UConn will lean on its history is talk, not just about play, but about valuing the compelling game that is Women’s NCAA DI Basketball.

Note: This story reflects a correction and update from an earlier version.

The 2011-2012 NCAA basketball season has just kicked off, which means thousands of women are making their debut at the college level.

Even the most talented recruits, however, need more than raw skill to make an impact.

College presents new obstacles: increased intensity, expectations, and pace. Players must figure out how to navigate athletic and academic commitments – and find their place on a new team. It’s tough to go from being a high school star to sitting at the end of the bench.

Cindy Blodgett, assistant coach at the University of Rhode Island (which has six freshmen this year), says this can be a major issue to overcome.  “The college game is so different because you are no longer automatically the best player on the court.  You have to earn playing time from the start of pre-season and every practice is as competitive as a game.”

Some players do struggle with the pressure and the transition to college play. Some colleges are aware of this and trying to help. (At Wellesley College, first-year athletes are paired with an upperclass athlete who is a member of another team to provide support and advice).

Freshmen who go to practice with the right work ethic and attitude, however, often find their niche. After all, coaches are also trying to figure out how to get the most out of their new faces.

URI assistant Kelly Morrone works on smoothing the transition by trying to help freshmen fill roles on the team that may be lacking. “I ask [players] what they keep hearing the coaching staff say that this team needs — and to focus on one or two of those things.”  Players can use that information to work on their strengths and fill needed roles on the team – and earn minutes.

Players seeking ways to stand out must also be patient in dealing with sometimes unwanted attention from coaches.  Rather than thinking that a coach is “out to get them,” players should realize that coaches are often their biggest advocates.

Nerlande Nicolas, who sat the bench throughout high school before going on to be a four-year starter at Rutgers-Newark, credits her transformation to figuring that out.

“I matured a lot as a college player in simply understanding that I have to trust my coaches and understand that their criticisms and corrections aren’t a personal attack at me, but rather, they help me improve my game.”

Players who buy into a program of play and trust their coaches can find themselves in a position of real value. Making that leap, says Nicholas, is difficult and requires working harder than you’ve ever worked before. For players who find their way, the rewards are invaluable.

As freshmen take the floor with their teams this season, fans watch and try to pick out the talent, the personalities, and, of course, their favorites. It’s exciting to see the drama unfold, and new players begin to make their mark on the game.

By Ashleigh Sargent

Think of it as one step – literally a 12” stride – toward gender equity. This year for the first time, women and men will shoot from the same 20’9” three-point line.

The NCAA Playing Rules Oversight Panel decided to move the women’s three-point arc from 19’9” after tracking the location of shots from three-point land. The NCAA’s study showed that the majority of three pointers taken by female players last season were taken from behind the (former) men’s three-point line.

In fact, the data show women shot an impressive 33% from this further distance, which is a higher percentage than from the 19’9” arc.

I got in touch with Kamile Nacickaite, a senior guard at Drexel University, who shot a stunning 47.8 percent from the three last year, giving her the best three-point shooting percentage of any returning NCAA DI player.

She’s game for the deeper arc. “I like this change,” she says. “It challenges players to work on their shot more.”

Nacickaite, originally from Siauliai, Lithuania, grew up shooting from the further three point line. And while that gives her an edge, she also believes the change will improve play. “The offense is more spread out, so it opens lanes for players to drive,” she says.

Drexel Coach Denise Dillon has mixed feelings. While she agrees with moving the line to make it consistent with the men’s game, she thinks it could be tough for shooters.

“The shooting percentage from the three-point line will drop.  It will take time for the players to become consistent from the new line,” says Dillon, who has noticed many shots being taken from just inside or right on the line, resulting in only two points. As a result, she thinks there may be fewer attempted threes than in the past.

To prepare, Dillon has her team doing more shooting drills from the line. “During drills the team appears comfortable with the distance, but in game-like situations many struggle with the range.” We’ll soon find out how the new line shapes play: The Drexel Dragon’s season begins November 6.

Any big change requires time to adjust. Initial struggles are to be expected. But putting the women’s three-point mark in line with the men’s only makes sense.

The international track federation’s (IAAF) decision to nullify women’s marathon records from mixed-sex events reflects a crude double standard: Men can have rabbits; women can’t.

The use of pacesetters is common in running, from short track distances to marathons. Boston and New York no longer allow pacesetters, but many marathons do, including Chicago, London, Berlin, and Rotterdam. (New York used to, paying rabbits several thousand dollars to set the pace and then drop out at the 25K mark).

By framing the matter as a gender problem — women’s marathon records can only count in women’s-only events — the IAAF conveniently sidesteps the more controversial issue: Should rabbits be allowed?

Competitive sport has long relied on athletic challengers meant to set a pace or spur improved performance. It is part of bicycle and car racing. While use of male practice squads in women’s college basketball spurred debate several years ago, the NCAA decided to allow them. (BTW colleges, including Ohio State are looking for a players).

Does the practice provide an unfair advantage? If so, are we ready to apply the same standard to men’s records achieved with the aid of pacesetters?

That would be a blow to many, including Roger Bannister who ran his historic sub-four-minute mile in 1955 — with the help of two pacers.

Until we have female rabbits (a thought) it’s easy for the IAAF – as it was for opponents of male practice squad players – to argue that women are relying on physically large and speedy males to improve their own performance.

But then, aren’t male runners using rabbits doing the same thing? And let’s remember: Paula Radcliffe really did run a 2:15:25 marathon (and in 2003 when she did it, no British runner, female or male, ran faster).

When the NCAA decided late in 2010 to cut squash from the emerging sport list, most people didn’t notice the decision, let alone realize the profound impact on the sport moving forward. But this decision is like hitting the serve out at nine-all in the fifth.

Some background: 14 years ago the National Collegiate Athletics Association (NCAA) created an emerging sport list with the goal of having the nine original sports one day become official sponsored NCAA sports. Squash was on that list. Emerging status (only applicable to women’s sports) is bestowed on sports which the NCAA thinks have promise. The status provides for a 10-year window to build teams with the goal of reaching at least 40 college programs, the minimum required to become an official NCAA sport. As an incentive while in emerging status, colleges can count the women who play on those teams toward meeting Title IX requirements.

What’s happened? Of the nine original sports on the list, four have become “championship” sports: rowing, ice hockey, water polo and bowling. In the case of women’s squash, after the 10-year window, the NCAA granted the sport four extra years to reach the critical mass of 40 teams. Right now we’re at about 28. So in 2010, the Committee on Women’s Athletics and the NCAA Division 1 Council decided to drop the sport.

Does NCAA sponsorship really matter? Yes. Here’s why this decision hurts women’s squash:

1) Colleges now have no incentive to add squash as a varsity sport. Before the 2010 decision, colleges could add women’s varsity squash in order to fulfill Title IX requirements. Now there is no incentive – all the more so because the sport is seen as stagnant and incapable of growth.

2) Branding. With squash enthusiasts pushing for inclusion of the sport in the Olympics, one must look at how to brand the sport into being a nationally-recognized powerhouse. The NCAA brings national recognition and visibility to every sport it sponsors. Some may argue that this is in name only, but we cannot discount the importance of NCAA sponsorship and inclusion.

3) Women’s squash is not growing at the same rate as the men. During my time in college (2006-2010), the men’s College Squash Association almost doubled in size to over 60 teams. Most people when they heard about the NCAA’s decision cited this. But the men’s growth, while encouraging, is irrelevant. You need 40 varsity teams on the women’s side. If we can’t get 40 colleges to sponsor women’s varsity squash, how do we expect to get women to fill the draws at the US Nationals, National Doubles and Howe Cup? Also, why are colleges adding men’s programs, and not women’s programs? (At both club and varsity levels). Something is clearly amiss here, and must be addressed.

4) Resources (and the pipeline). One current discussion among the women: Why aren’t more female players becoming coaches or going into the administrative side of squash, at collegiate, interscholastic and national levels? The NCAA holds workshops for college athletes, including specialized ones to encourage women to become coaches and administrators. The problem? Squash athletes are not included in these workshops, because we aren’t an NCAA sport.

5) Limiting geographic and socioeconomic range of squash athletes. With squash as a recognized NCAA sport, colleges like George Washington University added programs. Division I colleges give athletic scholarships. Division III and Ivy League institutions cannot. With more Division I schools like GW adding squash, scholarships can be a tool for bringing in more diverse group of players and broadening support for the sport. Without access to NCAA status – and scholarships – women’s squash will remain an elite, Northeast game even as the men’s game reaches new audiences and players.

By Laura Pappano

It may look like an excuse for college students to gather in a festival atmosphere. And on the surface, Quidditch, the Harry-Potter-inspired sport in which players ride on brooms (ok, run with them between their legs), is a reach.

But, then, basketball probably looked odd to those who first spotted boys at the YMCA in Springfield, MA in 1891 hoisting soccer balls into peach baskets.

Like basketball, Quidditch is not merely about the physical challenge of play and competition, but also reflects a social goal. Basketball, invented to occupy boys indoors during winter, embraced the late 1800’s belief in “Muscular Christianity.” Strengthen (men’s) bodies to insure they were vigorous, manly vessels for godly values.

Is Quidditch, then, a means for countering Voldemort? Well, no, it’s actually more reflective of 21^st Century sport values, including gender equity.

Aimee Howarth, outreach director and member of the board of directors of the International Quidditch Association, spoke with FGN about the rising popularity of this campus sport – and it’s co-ed, gender fair karma.

FGN: How is the Quidditch you play, which has 7 players per team (3 Chasers, 2 Beaters, 1 Keeper and 1 Seeker), different from the Harry Potter books?

AH: The main difference is that we run instead of fly and the snitch is a person – we call them a snitch runner – dressed in gold or yellow. The goal is to knock people off their brooms. If you get hit by a bludger (we use dodgeballs) if you get hit by one of those have to run back to your goal post and you have to drop the quaffle [if you have it] or another bludger. The game ends when the snitch is caught. You get 10 points for getting the quaffle through the opposite goal posts (the quaffle is usually a volleyball or soccer ball slightly deflated so you can grab it).

FGN: Isn’t it hard to run with a broom?

AH: You get used to it. The hardest thing about running on a broom is you only have one hand for catching and throwing. Most people don’t even really notice it.

FGN: Can you use any kind of broom?

AH: We are working on getting an official broom. For the World Cup, we use Alivan’s brooms.

FGN: Where is the World Cup? How big an event is it?

AH: This year it will be November 12-13 at Randall’s Island in NYC. Last year we had 40,000 viewers and 46 teams competing. This year, we are expecting 80 teams.

FGN: How is this sport categorized on college campuses?

AH: We are a club sport. It’s not NCAA or anything like that. We are trying not to go in that direction because some of the uniqueness of our sport could be taken away.

FGN: You mentioned to me that this sport supports gender fair play? How?

AH: As a league we are co-ed and require at least two players [excluding the Seeker] to be of another gender. It is one of the only sports I’ve seen that makes that a rule. We don’t have any rule where if a woman or girl scores its like 2 points that you see in some leagues. We are thinking of requiring each position to be coed.

FGN: Why is that?

AH: We typically see more women players in the Beater position [defense] and more male players in the Chaser position [offense]. From a feminist standpoint that goes along with the Chaser being a more valued position because they score. That is not always the case, but its is something that we kind of noticed. So we are thinking of having offense and defense mixed sex. The board as a whole is committed to this [gender fairness].

FGN: You say this is a competitive sport. Do you have injuries?

AH: It is super competitive. Even though it is seen as a kind of a joke to people on the outside, it is super physical. The most common injuries? We have a lot of broken collarbones. We have had concussions. We haven’t had serious, serious injuries. Most often it is the shoulders, arms.

FGN: And after competition?

AH: Yes, after the World Cup everyone goes to get Butterbeer, which is actually beer with butterscotch in it, I think.

By Sarah Odell

Women’s squash is at a crossroads. I have written in this blog about huge strides that we have made with women’s doubles in the last year, but the women’s game as a whole — singles and doubles, professionals and amateurs — is in crisis. Women are being denied the opportunity to play, and women’s squash is in danger of becoming stagnant.

I’m sorry if I sound alarmist (and yes, I believe the problem can be fixed), but it is time that the women of my beloved sport come together and decide to actively press for change.

The number of women’s college teams is dwindling, as Rochester and Johns Hopkins both abolished varsity programs in the last five years. This is a problem as women represent 40% of the US Squash membership until they graduate from college, when they then represent 15%. The NCAA has not seen significant growth in the sport over the last ten years.

As a result, squash was cut from the emerging sports list at the NCAA, effective in August. While I, as a former college athlete, have ambivalent feelings about the NCAA, this is a huge blow to the sport. The NCAA bestows emerging sport status with the hopes that in a few years, it will gain enough support to become a full-fledged NCAA sport. While in the emerging category, universities may count the females engaged in that sport toward meeting Title IX proportionality rules.

While the NCAA’s decision happened with little fanfare, I discovered this week that Brown University is cutting several recruiting spots from men’s and women’s squash. The University is cutting 30 spots from admissions, beginning with the men’s and women’s squash programs, and is considering getting rid of the program altogether (there are plans to eliminate other sports teams, too). Coincidence? I think not.

Trouble in the squash world may be most pronounced at the college level, but the women’s game is struggling at the top, too – although the issues are the same.

There has been a lot written recently about Title IX—in the New York Times, the blogosphere, and, most interestingly to me, in a bunch of emails I was copied on regarding the World Doubles Championships held in Toronto, Canada on May 6-9.

The tournament was supposed to have a men’s draw of 16 teams with a $30,000 purse, and a women’s draw of eight teams with a $10,000 purse. As the tournament approached, a problem arose: there was only $7600 in prize money for the women. While there was back and forth and blame about what had gone wrong, I noticed that Title IX kept popping up in emails as the professional women grappled with whether or not to boycott the event. Two teams did withdraw from the event.

What’s striking to me is that, yes, Title IX is a U.S. law passed in 1972  (so of course female squash pros playing in Toronto did not expect it to shape the World Doubles purse). But calling upon Title IX almost forty years later highlights the frustrating fact that women still face the same old challenge: opportunity. At every level, we are still battling for the chance to play.

Filling women’s draws at national championships, as well as for local squash tournaments is never easy. But doubles can be especially difficult because appropriately-sized courts are hard to find, period, and then sometimes women aren’t even allowed to play on them. In New York City, for example, there are six doubles courts, and women are only permitted to play on four of them.

It all comes back to opportunity. It may look like women aren’t interested in playing squash – until you consider the dearth of access. This spring, after the newly created doubles league ended in New York, some men (yes, men) at the University Club of New York came to me and said that they wanted to start a women’s doubles league in New York. They hoped that by giving us courts and competition at no charge, the league would be successful enough for NY Squash to add it to doubles programming for the fall.

Well, the offer of courts at no charge was too good to pass up. I emailed everyone I knew who was female and played squash in New York. I expected to bring two teams with 10 women total to the University Club. In two days, I brought them four teams and about 25 women. There are roughly 45 women in the league. (Even I was surprised and impressed).

You see, if you give women the opportunity to play, they will come out. But opportunities in squash are beginning to shrink, not grow. We as women, especially in the sport of squash, need to make a decision: either we rally and demand or create opportunity –  or we watch this sport slip away.

Last week after Wheelock College freshman Claire O’Donoghue, a member of the Men’s Tennis Team (yes, you read that correctly), earned a 6-1, 6-0 victory in singles and an 8-6 win in doubles with her male partner (plus narrowly lost another match in the third set), she was named New England Collegiate Conference Rookie of the Week.

That makes O’Donohue, of East Haven, CT, the first woman to win such honors in one of the conference’s seven men’s sports.

Aside from the texts and Facebook kudos, O’Donoghue appreciates the nod — a lot. “Because it’s a men’s sport, I feel like it’s a greater honor, like I proved myself,” she said during a phone interview.

Wheelock College Athletic Director Diana Cutaia explained via e-mail why under Title IX rules three women currently play on the Wheelock Men’s Tennis Team. In short, because men have been the under-represented gender at Wheelock, she’s added sports teams to accommodate their interests. “Because we don’t offer a women’s team the NCAA allows women to participate on the men’s team,” she writes.

While Cutaia says interest in tennis among women has been great enough to consider starting a women’s team (though notes, finances, Title IX, and other matters to weigh), O’Donoghue prefers playing with the guys. “I like the team the way it is,” she says. “I like the competition.”

So why, again, can’t DIII tennis be coed? Sure, O’Donoghue says some opponents fuss when they face her.  “One guy said it was ‘degrading’ playing women,” she recalls. “It just gave me more motivation.”

O’Donoghue says many male players mistakenly expect victory just because she’s female. “They really do get mad when you beat them,” she says. “There are some people who don’t want to play girls. I just play how I know how to play. If I lose, I lose, If I win, I feel even better.”

Last week at least, she played well enough to earn some wins — and an historic honor.

Might it be time for coed college tennis in Division III? And not as a Title IX-enabled exception, but as a common sense way to promote good play and take a whack at lingering sexism?